Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8947 total)
40 online now:
Newest Member: ski zawaski
Post Volume: Total: 865,998 Year: 21,034/19,786 Month: 1,431/2,023 Week: 382/557 Day: 75/47 Hour: 1/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Climate Change Denier comes in from the cold: SCIENCE!!!
Faith
Member
Posts: 33739
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 541 of 546 (865381)
10-24-2019 2:37 AM
Reply to: Message 540 by AZPaul3
10-24-2019 2:20 AM


Re: Carbon Sequestration.
OK but then we can address each of those situations with the carbon-grabbing technology separately without having to butt heads with the producers of the fossil fuel, no?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 540 by AZPaul3, posted 10-24-2019 2:20 AM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 542 by AZPaul3, posted 10-24-2019 3:54 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 544 by Taq, posted 10-25-2019 1:28 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 546 by RAZD, posted 10-28-2019 12:23 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4765
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 542 of 546 (865389)
10-24-2019 3:54 AM
Reply to: Message 541 by Faith
10-24-2019 2:37 AM


Re: Carbon Sequestration.
OK but then we can address each of those situations with the carbon-grabbing technology separately without having to butt heads with the producers of the fossil fuel, no?

Sequestration alone will not solve the problem. Burning fossil fuels is the problem and needs to be *drastically* reduced. There is no way to do that without costing Big Carbon $$billions. They will not allow that to happen. And they have the means to stop it.

The best way I know of to reduce emissions by the amounts needed is through a carbon tax levied on the refineries and coal mines. That would drastically increase the cost of gasoline, oil, heating fuel, natural gas, coal, shale oil.

This will spur improvements and efficiencies in alternatives like electric cars, solar for homes and businesses, alternative electric generation. More and more people would switch to avoid the higher costs.

To offset the cost to the less fortunate in our society a tax refund equal to the average cost increase would be given. But only to those making less than some number, say $200,000.

Additionally, the new taxes would fund tax incentives to utilities to switch to alternative power sources and would fund R&D into more efficient vehicles and additional alternative power sources and sequestration technologies.

But Big Carbon has a stranglehold on our political institutions. And the voting public, dumb as a stump, is too disposed to their propaganda and manipulation to change that. We're screwed.

Those of us here will not be around for the bad stuff, but, our grandchildren and great-grandchildren will have it much harder than we as ecosystems and social systems come under the strain of near collapse. In the short term, 200-500 years, those poor souls will suffer greatly. In the long term ... well ... the only thing that will be left is for whatever remains of humanity to take a comfortable seat, bend over real far and kiss their ass goodbye.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 541 by Faith, posted 10-24-2019 2:37 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17580
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.3


(1)
Message 543 of 546 (865403)
10-24-2019 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 533 by Faith
10-23-2019 8:23 PM


Re: Carbon Removal Technology? Anybody heard about this?
Faith writes:

It was said on the radio and went by very fast. Somebody mentioned that there is now some kind of technology that can remove carbon from the atmosphere.


Even here in the backwoods of Saskatchewan we've been experimenting with carbon-capture for years. I just heard on the news recently that somebody is experimenting with sequestering captured carbon in concrete buildings. And so on.

You really need to get a better source of news.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 533 by Faith, posted 10-23-2019 8:23 PM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 545 by Minnemooseus, posted 10-26-2019 12:50 AM ringo has acknowledged this reply

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8175
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.2


(2)
Message 544 of 546 (865460)
10-25-2019 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 541 by Faith
10-24-2019 2:37 AM


Re: Carbon Sequestration.
Faith writes:

OK but then we can address each of those situations with the carbon-grabbing technology separately without having to butt heads with the producers of the fossil fuel, no?

Good ol' thermodynamics still raises its head. When we add oxygen to long chain carbon molecules in fossil fuels we get energy, carbon dioxide, and water out of that reaction. If we want to run it in reverse, then we have to add energy. If we use fossil fuels to sequester carbon dioxide, then we aren't gaining anything. In fact, it would probably increase the carbon dioxide in the air because it wouldn't be 100% efficient.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 541 by Faith, posted 10-24-2019 2:37 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3775
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 5.3


(2)
Message 545 of 546 (865496)
10-26-2019 12:50 AM
Reply to: Message 543 by ringo
10-24-2019 12:01 PM


Cement production releases a lot of CO2 to atmosphere
Maybe there is some twist to help the problem, but...

quote:
Carbon concentration in cement spans from ≈5% in cement structures to ≈8% in the case of roads in cement.[53] Cement manufacturing releases CO2 in the atmosphere both directly when calcium carbonate is heated, producing lime and carbon dioxide,[54][55] and also indirectly through the use of energy if its production involves the emission of CO2. The cement industry produces about 10% of global man-made CO2 emissions, of which 60% is from the chemical process, and 40% from burning fuel.[56] A Chatham House study from 2018 estimates that the 4 billion tonnes of cement produced annually account for 8% of worldwide CO2 emissions.[57]

Nearly 900 kg of CO2 are emitted for every 1000 kg of Portland cement produced. ...


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cement#CO2_emissions

Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 543 by ringo, posted 10-24-2019 12:01 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20273
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 546 of 546 (865623)
10-28-2019 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 541 by Faith
10-24-2019 2:37 AM


Carbon Sequestration. OR Grow HEMP
Faith, this may be what you heard about:

quote:
MIT Scientists Say They Found a New Way to Scrub Atmospheric CO2

Carbon Capture

A team of MIT engineers claims to have figured out how to scrub harmful carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, potentially giving the world a new weapon in the fight against climate change.

While many scientists argue that carbon capture technology is a necessary part of preventing the worst effects of climate change, current approaches to the tech have never scaled enough to be practical. Now, the team — which founded a company called Verdox to commercialize its system — thinks it may have cracked the code. By sending air past an electrically-charged plate of carbon nanotubes, they say, the system can literally suck CO2 out of the atmosphere.

Scaling Up

The key to the MIT researchers’ carbon capture system is that it requires much less energy —it could theoretically be built up to an industrial scale without requiring so much heat that it ends up harming the environment, according to research published in the journal Energy & Environmental Science.


ie -- it may or may not be a net benefit.

Easier and more cost effective is to use proven technology to produce renewable energy electricity and to reduce the use of fossil fuels in all manufacturing and energy generation.

Hemp can replace plastics and fuels. Growing hemp also reduces CO2 more than the same acreage of trees, and provides a reliable crop for farmers. win-win.

... without having to butt heads with the producers of the fossil fuel, no?

Only if they get their heads out of their butts and join the human race plans for survival instead of profits.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel•American•Zen•Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 541 by Faith, posted 10-24-2019 2:37 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019